continuous action

tko · Jul 9, 2014

Arg, I hate "ing" words. Continuous action--what does that really mean? Obviously, you can't have "unlocking the door, he climbed the stairs," but can you string together multiple continuous actions in one sentence?

A simple example sentence:

"She looked for her keys everywhere, searching cluttered surfaces, exploring nooks of forgotten desk drawers, reaching deep between seat cushions."

versus the more clear cut:

"She looked for her keys everywhere. She searched cluttered surface, explored the nooks of forgotten desk drawers, and reached deep between seat cushions."

To me, the 1st sentence is more dynamic, poetic, and implies a continuous sense of action and frustration, but is it so wrong it would bother you to read it?

Maryn · Jul 9, 2014

I'd be fine with it. I don't consider it wrong. What you've got, if I remember correctly, is participial phrases describing her search.

(Note my grammar education was so long ago; I could be wrong. Where's the real grammarians?)

Maryn, waffling as usual

Wilde_at_heart · Jul 9, 2014

The first one's better and perfectly fine as far as grammar.

Chase · Jul 9, 2014

Maryn said:
Where's the real grammarians?

I turned on the horns and flashers, so they should be here forthwith.

However, until one arrives, I agree there's nothing wrong with well-chosen ing words.

TKO's obviously bad one is a good example of misuse, while the searching/exploring/reaching example is quite good.

Wilde_at_heart · Jul 9, 2014

Maryn said:
I'd be fine with it. I don't consider it wrong. What you've got, if I remember correctly, is participial phrases describing her search.

(Note my grammar education was so long ago; I could be wrong. Where's the real grammarians?)

Maryn, waffling as usual

I think it might be ... adverbial clauses??

Chase · Jul 9, 2014

Wilde_at_heart said:
I think it might be ... adverbial clauses??

Maybe together we can figure out the best nomenclature. They can't be clauses, because there are no subjects and predicates. I think for searching,exploring, and reaching to be adverbs, they need "ly" tacked on.

Since they're phrases and either adverbial or participial, I think Maryn got it right.

(Why is there never a grammarian when you need one?)

Maryn · Jul 9, 2014

What? I was right? How can this be?

I think a recount is in order.

Maryn, not even drinking yet

Wilde_at_heart · Jul 9, 2014

@ Chase - not all adverbs end -ly.

I thought 'participial phrases' modify nouns, while what follows is modifying either the verb or the adverb 'everywhere'.

King Neptune · Jul 9, 2014

Maryn said:
I'd be fine with it. I don't consider it wrong. What you've got, if I remember correctly, is participial phrases describing her search.

(Note my grammar education was so long ago; I could be wrong. Where's the real grammarians?)

Maryn, waffling as usual

They were teaching in the past.

Rufus Coppertop · Jul 9, 2014

tko said:
Arg, I hate "ing" words. Continuous action--what does that really mean? Obviously, you can't have "unlocking the door, he climbed the stairs," but can you string together multiple continuous actions in one sentence?

A simple example sentence:

"She looked for her keys everywhere, searching cluttered surfaces, exploring nooks of forgotten desk drawers, reaching deep between seat cushions."

versus the more clear cut:

"She looked for her keys everywhere. She searched cluttered surface, explored the nooks of forgotten desk drawers, and reached deep between seat cushions."

To me, the 1st sentence is more dynamic, poetic, and implies a continuous sense of action and frustration, but is it so wrong it would bother you to read it?

Yes you can. It's not even remotely wrong. There is a sequence of specified variations on the continuous act of searching, described by present participles because the action was going on in the present of that particular time.

It's fine.

Regards,
Rufus (who likes both -ly and -ing words. Especially if they're deployed cunningly.)

Chase · Jul 9, 2014

Wilde_at_heart said:
@ Chase - not all adverbs end -ly.

Really? Really and truly? Way to work together. While your statement is true, American Heritage and Webster dictionaries only show searching, exploring, and reaching as adverbs with the suffix "ly."

Chase · Jul 9, 2014

Rufus Coppertop said:
cunningly

Ruff kicks. It's past the goalie and in the net. The crowd goes wild. :Trophy:

JulianneQJohnson · Jul 9, 2014

"He left the house, walking as fast as his legs could carry him."

Present participle phrase, describing the noun "he." Which guy? The one walking fast as he leaves the house.

In the search example, I think it's still describing the subject. She's the one that's searching here, there, and everywhere.

I think that's true, anyway. I am not a grammar queen, or even a grammar princess. I can tell you that both present and past participle clauses are correct usage of grammar, and do not cause a change of tense. In my example, it's past tense, with a present participle clause. Perfectly legal. When writing my stories, I use participle clauses. 'Cause they are cool when used in moderation. Like fezzes.

Wilde_at_heart · Jul 9, 2014

Chase said:
Really? Really and truly? Way to work together. While your statement is true, American Heritage and Webster dictionaries only show searching, exploring, and reaching as adverbs with the suffix "ly."

I wasn't saying those verbs themselves were adverbs, but whatever they are called that are separated by commas after 'everywhere' function like adverbs - whether it's a phrase or a clause or whatnot, I'm not sure right now - since they modify either the verb itself, or the adverb 'everywhere'. They don't modify 'keys', was my point ...

ETA: JQ - I get what you mean now ... The site I was reading earlier as a reference wasn't as clear as this one I just found, which I think explains it, so yes, it is in that context such a phrase if 'she' is what is being modified. http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/participlephrase.htm

blacbird · Jul 9, 2014

tko said:
"She looked for her keys everywhere, searching cluttered surfaces, exploring nooks of forgotten desk drawers, reaching deep between seat cushions."

versus the more clear cut:

"She looked for her keys everywhere. She searched cluttered surface, explored the nooks of forgotten desk drawers, and reached deep between seat cushions."

The second is much better. You could even tighten that a bit. To me, the first sentence is superfluous; and "surface" needs to be plural:

"She searched cluttered surfaces, explored the nooks of forgotten desk drawers, and reached deep between seat cushions."

Your list of actions is not continuous, nor simultaneous; it's sequential. Those are the major criteria for determining the best verb forms to use in describing action.

caw

Rufus Coppertop · Jul 10, 2014

Chase said:
Ruff kicks. It's past the goalie and in the net. The crowd goes wild.

Jamesaritchie · Jul 10, 2014

First, there's nothing at all wrong with "ing" words. Nothing. Not using "ing" words is one of those silly non-rules made up by an evil elf who never read a book in his life. Sometimes, however, you use "ing", sometimes you use "ed", and you always follow tense. Most important, however, is using whatever reads the best. Your first sentence bothers me only because in that particular sentence, "ed" works much better than "ing".

"She looked for her keys everywhere, searched cluttered surfaces, explored nooks of forgotten desk drawers, reached deep between seat cushions."

Nothing at all wrong with such a sentence. It is, in fact, a good sentence in every way. I think the real reason "ing" words got a bad name is because writers use them too often, and do so when an "ed" would work better.

Your second example is not more clear cut, and is not better in any way. It creates a second sentence that doesn't even tell us what she's searching for, has poor rhythm, and that just doesn't read well.

Good writing is done with the ear, not with a grammar book. Writing can have perfect grammar in every way, have nary a comma out of place, and still be so horrible, and so boring , that it will make your teeth clench and your ears bleed. It may even make your ears clench and your teeth bleed.

Writing can also be filled with poor grammar, and enough technical mistakes to make a high school English teacher commit suicide, but be brilliant, pleasing to the ear, and instantly publishable.

tko · Jul 10, 2014

Right. The extra sentence was more to establish context than for any real need. So we have a vote for the 2nd sentence. Just when I thought we had a clear winner!

Continuous action is confusing to me, but I'm an engineer. All actions will stop eventually, even the expansion of the universe. All actions exist for some time, even the flight or a bullet. So I think continuous action means for the duration of the sentence.

"Running down the street, he . . . "

He's running down the street for the remainder of this sentence. You can't have him doing anything that would contradict this. He can't stop, tie his shoes, reach his house, fall over but he can see something, breath hard, pull out a gun.

I like the feel of my 1st sentence. But it has multiple continuous actions, which shouldn't exist in the same sentence.

"Running down the hallway, bouncing up the stairway, dancing on the rooftop . . . "

Poetic, and a form used in popular songs, but technically, once you establish she's running down a hallway, you can't have her dancing on the stairs . . or can you???? Am I over-thinking this?

blacbird said:
The second is much better.

"She searched cluttered surfaces, explored the nooks of forgotten desk drawers, and reached deep between seat cushions."

Your list of actions is not continuous, nor simultaneous; it's sequential. Those are the major criteria for determining the best verb forms to use in describing action.
caw

Technically, I agree, and that was why I posted the question. But many (including myself) seem to enjoy the 1st sentence, so I was looking for rationalization.

guttersquid · Jul 10, 2014

tko said:
"She looked for her keys everywhere, searching cluttered surfaces, exploring nooks of forgotten desk drawers, reaching deep between seat cushions."

This sentence can be defended as proper by parsing its logic. [Note: the "ing" verb phrases refer to "looked," not to "she," "keys," or "everywhere."]

She looked for her keys everywhere, [how did she look?] by searching cluttered surfaces, by exploring nooks of forgotten desk drawers, and by reaching deep between seat cushions.

blacbird said:
She searched cluttered surfaces, explored the nooks of forgotten desk drawers, and reached deep between seat cushions.

This is a fine and proper example of writing the sentence (the actions) in simple past tense.

blacbird said:
Your list of actions is not continuous, nor simultaneous; it's sequential.

It's true that the actions are not simultaneous, but they are not necessarily sequential. There is nothing in the sentence that states the actions were taken in any particular order, nor that any group of actions was completed before going on to the next. It is possible that she searched a surface, explored a desk drawer, searched a different surface, searched under some seat cushions, searched other drawers, etc.

Because both sentences are fine and proper, which is the better choice comes down to the author's desired effect. Blackbird's sentence is a straight forward narration of the actions taken to find the keys. The first sentence suggests a more frantic search.

blacbird · Jul 12, 2014

guttersquid said:
It's true that the actions are not simultaneous, but they are not necessarily sequential.

You are misconstruing what I meant by "sequential", which was simply that they didn't (couldn't) take place at the same time. Whether they were done in a direct order, or at a variety of times doesn't matter to the construction of the sentence.

In any case, the problem is relatively minor and easily addressed by altering the verb form. But it is a good example of things I see commonly in my English composition classes.

caw

Roxxsmom · Jul 12, 2014

tko said:
Arg, I hate "ing" words. Continuous action--what does that really mean? Obviously, you can't have "unlocking the door, he climbed the stairs," but can you string together multiple continuous actions in one sentence?

A simple example sentence:

"She looked for her keys everywhere, searching cluttered surfaces, exploring nooks of forgotten desk drawers, reaching deep between seat cushions."

versus the more clear cut:

"She looked for her keys everywhere. She searched cluttered surface, explored the nooks of forgotten desk drawers, and reached deep between seat cushions."

To me, the 1st sentence is more dynamic, poetic, and implies a continuous sense of action and frustration, but is it so wrong it would bother you to read it?

The construction can be handy if two actions are truly simultaneous.

Tapping frantically at her phone, she rushed down the stairs. And tripped on the bottom step. Splat.

Also, if something is happening in an open-ended way, the progressive tense makes sense. Or if one action interrupts another.

"When I walked into the room, Bob was sitting by the fire."

doesn't mean the same thing as:

"When I walked into the room, Bob sat by the fire."

I think if you overuse these kinds of sentences, they do become noticeably repetitive. I read somewhere that Jane Austin rarely used that kind of sentence construct in her writing, but I can't think of any authors I've read in recent years who don't use them at least occasionally. I have run into the incorrect (non sequential) use of participles of this type in published work sometimes. I guess it's a judgement call sometimes. Too many compound sentences joined by "ands" get repetitive too.

BethS · Jul 13, 2014

tko said:
Arg, I hate "ing" words. Continuous action--what does that really mean? Obviously, you can't have "unlocking the door, he climbed the stairs," but can you string together multiple continuous actions in one sentence?

A simple example sentence:

"She looked for her keys everywhere, searching cluttered surfaces, exploring nooks of forgotten desk drawers, reaching deep between seat cushions."

This is perfectly fine and clear. All the phrases are modifying "she looked," which is a general statement.

Ken · Jul 13, 2014

I might do something like this.

She looked for her keys everywhere: cluttered surfaces, nooks of forgotten desk drawers, seat cushions.

It's detail. Fine to mention, but best to include as unobtrusively as possible.
In other words, be quick about it and don't make much fuss.

That's just me though. Everyone has their different approach.
And characters theirs.

EarlyBird · Jul 13, 2014

I like the second sentence better. The first irks me. Far too many verbs doing things they shouldn't.

If I were writing this, though, I'd do it something like this:

She looked everywhere for her keys--the kitchen counter tops and drawers, the bathroom vanity, in between the couch cushions. She even dumped out her purse but found nothing but trash.

continuous action

just thanks fore everything

Baaa!

&#965;&#960;&#949;&#943;&#954;&#969;phobe

It Takes All of Us to End Racism

&#965;&#960;&#949;&#943;&#954;&#969;phobe

It Takes All of Us to End Racism

Baaa!

&#965;&#960;&#949;&#943;&#954;&#969;phobe

It Takes All of Us to End Racism

It Takes All of Us to End Racism

Ferret Herder

&#965;&#960;&#949;&#943;&#954;&#969;phobe

just thanks fore everything

I agree with Roxxsmom.

Beastly Fido

Grinding it out

υπείκωphobe

υπείκωphobe

υπείκωphobe

υπείκωphobe